Re: [Wikimedia-l] Welcome messages at arwiki

[Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l]

i think many people might not understand what is the real problem here with 
this aspect in the general framework. I might make a brutal simplification, of 
course.
In any case, if you manage to make the moment when a logged-in user is 
connected to a platform for the first time a secret, that basically do not have 
a big impact on anything most of the people do, so I can probably tell you to 
go on. What would be the effect? The info will disappear from the SUL table or 
something like that. Whatever.
But I guess, cynically, that a "non-solution" of "don't use the bot" is much 
more fitting for the "social ecosystem" and the way it evolves on wiki 
platforms. This way you did not address a higher level aspect of the issue, you 
remove the global feeling of alert down a notch and you can act in any case as 
if you did something in that direction. Also, it makes no solid precedent when 
future real privacy problem are discussed. 
That's why asking to remove the info completely, from my point of view, it's 
even slightly better.  At least next time we discuss privacy in other matter I 
have a strong precedent case to cite. I mean... if people make a fuzz about 
this, I expect they really care about other things. I could ping all the 
favorable to such information removal one by one in a future RfC.
Alex 

Il Venerdì 26 Gennaio 2018 3:37, John Erling Blad  ha 
scritto:
 

 Fine! If people refuse the easy way out, then create an Rfc, and start the 
process to make creation of new user accounts non-public information.
Den fre. 26. jan. 2018, 03.04 skrev Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l 
:

you are not "exposing the user unknowingly visiting the site" with the bot 
itself...when you visit the site you are integrated in the SUL, it's public 
information since ages. The fact that a bot takes care of it or a human being 
leaves a message does not tell you a lot more. Sometimes on certain wiki 
welcome messages are delivered sometimes they are not. Sometimes immediately, 
sometimes later. It's a very fragmented situation so the bot tells you 
basically nothing per se, it simple makes some people aware that the 
information of visiting a site exists and it is public. 
So the question is not about the bot, the question is if when you do 
thishttps://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ACentralAuth=Alexmar983
and you can read that it's public that for example I was attached on fawiki on 
21:41, 11 April 2012, which is basically when I visited it the first time. 
Although not strictly, I could have visited it and the system having problem 
and log me out (that also happen) so technically this is not even true 
sometimes... But even if it was precise, is the public knowledge of this 
information really a threat to my privacy? or it is justing many of the things 
I implicitly agree when I make an account?
The "violation of privacy" of such information, it's not even comparable with 
dozen of other things in your life. But seriously if THIS is a problem and had 
to be "put secret" than I'd expect to be informed when a check user look at my 
data. You know a few group of people decide when it's right or wrong to 
look at my personal data and not informing me when they do it probably because 
they found nothing (but they have such information in their hand now, don't 
they? Shouldn't I generic user be informed about it?), that's not very nice for 
the privacy of anyone. So the core point is not that I receive a message once a 
year that makes me aware that the SUL information exist, but that I don't 
receive a lot of other messages that I should receiving about who's looking at 
many others of my personal data.
Privacy is a serious matter. I expect RfC for things that have impact. Now 
imagine that I go to people that are worried and tell them the nobody really 
cares that they are not informed when someone look inside their provider data 
(because put in the end of a small group of people is "enough") or that the 
disaggregated information of CU activity is not public for the majority of 
platforms... but someone cares so much if they receive a welcoming message by 
bot when they visit a platform for the first time. I am quite sure that the 
users I know will not be impressed.

    Il Venerdì 26 Gennaio 2018 0:27, John Erling Blad  ha 
scritto:


 I can't see that T42006 is relevant in this case. It is about abusive use
of a bot, not about creation of the central account in itself.

The existence of a central account leads to creation of the local account.
This is probably acceptable. Then this may lead to the abusiv behavior, ie
exposing the user unknowingly visiting the site. This is probably not
intended and not acceptable.

I wonder if the solution is to filter down the new users to real
contributors, that would be pretty simple

Den tor. 25. jan. 2018, 22.55 skrev Pine W :

> Joe,
>
> I believe that the 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Welcome messages at arwiki

[John Erling Blad]

Fine! If people refuse the easy way out, then create an Rfc, and start the
process to make creation of new user accounts non-public information.

Den fre. 26. jan. 2018, 03.04 skrev Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l <
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>:

> you are not "exposing the user unknowingly visiting the site" with the bot
> itself...when you visit the site you are integrated in the SUL, it's public
> information since ages. The fact that a bot takes care of it or a human
> being leaves a message does not tell you a lot more. Sometimes on certain
> wiki welcome messages are delivered sometimes they are not. Sometimes
> immediately, sometimes later. It's a very fragmented situation so the bot
> tells you basically nothing per se, it simple makes some people aware that
> the information of visiting a site exists and it is public.
> So the question is not about the bot, the question is if when you do
> thishttps://
> commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ACentralAuth=Alexmar983
> and you can read that it's public that for example I was attached on
> fawiki on 21:41, 11 April 2012, which is basically when I visited it the
> first time. Although not strictly, I could have visited it and the system
> having problem and log me out (that also happen) so technically this is not
> even true sometimes... But even if it was precise, is the public knowledge
> of this information really a threat to my privacy? or it is justing many of
> the things I implicitly agree when I make an account?
> The "violation of privacy" of such information, it's not even comparable
> with dozen of other things in your life. But seriously if THIS is a problem
> and had to be "put secret" than I'd expect to be informed when a check user
> look at my data. You know a few group of people decide when it's right
> or wrong to look at my personal data and not informing me when they do it
> probably because they found nothing (but they have such information in
> their hand now, don't they? Shouldn't I generic user be informed about
> it?), that's not very nice for the privacy of anyone. So the core point is
> not that I receive a message once a year that makes me aware that the SUL
> information exist, but that I don't receive a lot of other messages that I
> should receiving about who's looking at many others of my personal data.
> Privacy is a serious matter. I expect RfC for things that have impact. Now
> imagine that I go to people that are worried and tell them the nobody
> really cares that they are not informed when someone look inside their
> provider data (because put in the end of a small group of people is
> "enough") or that the disaggregated information of CU activity is not
> public for the majority of platforms... but someone cares so much if they
> receive a welcoming message by bot when they visit a platform for the first
> time. I am quite sure that the users I know will not be impressed.
>
> Il Venerdì 26 Gennaio 2018 0:27, John Erling Blad 
> ha scritto:
>
>
>  I can't see that T42006 is relevant in this case. It is about abusive use
> of a bot, not about creation of the central account in itself.
>
> The existence of a central account leads to creation of the local account.
> This is probably acceptable. Then this may lead to the abusiv behavior, ie
> exposing the user unknowingly visiting the site. This is probably not
> intended and not acceptable.
>
> I wonder if the solution is to filter down the new users to real
> contributors, that would be pretty simple
>
> Den tor. 25. jan. 2018, 22.55 skrev Pine W :
>
> > Joe,
> >
> > I believe that the issue of a potential privacy violation was first
> raised
> > on this list on December 30th, and I first emailed WMF Legal about this
> > issue on January 1st. Keeping in mind that the issue involves potential
> > privacy violations, I think that it's reasonable to think that this issue
> > should have been reviewed within days, not weeks. I disagree with the
> > statement that "A subsequent review is clearly going to be a low priority
> > task as I am sure you can understand Pine." If anything, I think that the
> > situation is clear to the contrary and it should have been reviewed
> within
> > days.
> >
> > For me, an RfC about this matter would be for the purposes of (1)
> > encouraging WMF to give more attention to this matter, (2) attempting to
> > establish community consensus about whether the matters being raised here
> > involve privacy violations, and (3) what should be done, if anything.
> > Personally, I think that the status quo does involve privacy violations
> and
> > that there should be changes. Whether that view is shared by others is
> > something that the RfC would attempt to measure.
> >
> > In this circumstance I consider RfC to be similar to a ballot measure,
> and
> > I think that it's appropriate for me to say that if I think that there
> are
> > problems then I may use tools that are 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Welcome messages at arwiki

[Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l]

you are not "exposing the user unknowingly visiting the site" with the bot 
itself...when you visit the site you are integrated in the SUL, it's public 
information since ages. The fact that a bot takes care of it or a human being 
leaves a message does not tell you a lot more. Sometimes on certain wiki 
welcome messages are delivered sometimes they are not. Sometimes immediately, 
sometimes later. It's a very fragmented situation so the bot tells you 
basically nothing per se, it simple makes some people aware that the 
information of visiting a site exists and it is public. 
So the question is not about the bot, the question is if when you do 
thishttps://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ACentralAuth=Alexmar983
and you can read that it's public that for example I was attached on fawiki on 
21:41, 11 April 2012, which is basically when I visited it the first time. 
Although not strictly, I could have visited it and the system having problem 
and log me out (that also happen) so technically this is not even true 
sometimes... But even if it was precise, is the public knowledge of this 
information really a threat to my privacy? or it is justing many of the things 
I implicitly agree when I make an account?
The "violation of privacy" of such information, it's not even comparable with 
dozen of other things in your life. But seriously if THIS is a problem and had 
to be "put secret" than I'd expect to be informed when a check user look at my 
data. You know a few group of people decide when it's right or wrong to 
look at my personal data and not informing me when they do it probably because 
they found nothing (but they have such information in their hand now, don't 
they? Shouldn't I generic user be informed about it?), that's not very nice for 
the privacy of anyone. So the core point is not that I receive a message once a 
year that makes me aware that the SUL information exist, but that I don't 
receive a lot of other messages that I should receiving about who's looking at 
many others of my personal data.
Privacy is a serious matter. I expect RfC for things that have impact. Now 
imagine that I go to people that are worried and tell them the nobody really 
cares that they are not informed when someone look inside their provider data 
(because put in the end of a small group of people is "enough") or that the 
disaggregated information of CU activity is not public for the majority of 
platforms... but someone cares so much if they receive a welcoming message by 
bot when they visit a platform for the first time. I am quite sure that the 
users I know will not be impressed. 

Il Venerdì 26 Gennaio 2018 0:27, John Erling Blad  ha 
scritto:
 

 I can't see that T42006 is relevant in this case. It is about abusive use
of a bot, not about creation of the central account in itself.

The existence of a central account leads to creation of the local account.
This is probably acceptable. Then this may lead to the abusiv behavior, ie
exposing the user unknowingly visiting the site. This is probably not
intended and not acceptable.

I wonder if the solution is to filter down the new users to real
contributors, that would be pretty simple

Den tor. 25. jan. 2018, 22.55 skrev Pine W :

> Joe,
>
> I believe that the issue of a potential privacy violation was first raised
> on this list on December 30th, and I first emailed WMF Legal about this
> issue on January 1st. Keeping in mind that the issue involves potential
> privacy violations, I think that it's reasonable to think that this issue
> should have been reviewed within days, not weeks. I disagree with the
> statement that "A subsequent review is clearly going to be a low priority
> task as I am sure you can understand Pine." If anything, I think that the
> situation is clear to the contrary and it should have been reviewed within
> days.
>
> For me, an RfC about this matter would be for the purposes of (1)
> encouraging WMF to give more attention to this matter, (2) attempting to
> establish community consensus about whether the matters being raised here
> involve privacy violations, and (3) what should be done, if anything.
> Personally, I think that the status quo does involve privacy violations and
> that there should be changes. Whether that view is shared by others is
> something that the RfC would attempt to measure.
>
> In this circumstance I consider RfC to be similar to a ballot measure, and
> I think that it's appropriate for me to say that if I think that there are
> problems then I may use tools that are available to me to attempt to
> address them, preferably with WMF's cooperation, but without WMF"s
> cooperation if necessary and if possible.
>
> John,
>
> A previous discussion about the privacy issues occurred in
> https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T42006. I received a new email from WMF
> Legal in which they affirmed their department's 2012 view on this matter.
> The most recent 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Welcome messages at arwiki

[John Erling Blad]

I can't see that T42006 is relevant in this case. It is about abusive use
of a bot, not about creation of the central account in itself.

The existence of a central account leads to creation of the local account.
This is probably acceptable. Then this may lead to the abusiv behavior, ie
exposing the user unknowingly visiting the site. This is probably not
intended and not acceptable.

I wonder if the solution is to filter down the new users to real
contributors, that would be pretty simple

Den tor. 25. jan. 2018, 22.55 skrev Pine W :

> Joe,
>
> I believe that the issue of a potential privacy violation was first raised
> on this list on December 30th, and I first emailed WMF Legal about this
> issue on January 1st. Keeping in mind that the issue involves potential
> privacy violations, I think that it's reasonable to think that this issue
> should have been reviewed within days, not weeks. I disagree with the
> statement that "A subsequent review is clearly going to be a low priority
> task as I am sure you can understand Pine." If anything, I think that the
> situation is clear to the contrary and it should have been reviewed within
> days.
>
> For me, an RfC about this matter would be for the purposes of (1)
> encouraging WMF to give more attention to this matter, (2) attempting to
> establish community consensus about whether the matters being raised here
> involve privacy violations, and (3) what should be done, if anything.
> Personally, I think that the status quo does involve privacy violations and
> that there should be changes. Whether that view is shared by others is
> something that the RfC would attempt to measure.
>
> In this circumstance I consider RfC to be similar to a ballot measure, and
> I think that it's appropriate for me to say that if I think that there are
> problems then I may use tools that are available to me to attempt to
> address them, preferably with WMF's cooperation, but without WMF"s
> cooperation if necessary and if possible.
>
> John,
>
> A previous discussion about the privacy issues occurred in
> https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T42006. I received a new email from WMF
> Legal in which they affirmed their department's 2012 view on this matter.
> The most recent email gave me the impression that they are receptive to
> discussion about whether there should be changes although there may be
> resource limitations. That sounds like a good starting place for a
> conversation, and I think that on the community's side an RfC is the best
> way to gauge the community's views. I am busy for the next few days but
> I'll try to set up an RfC on Meta during the weekend.
>
> Pine 
> 
>
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 2:29 AM, Joseph Seddon 
> wrote:
>
> > This conversation started in the middle of the Christmas break following
> > which I suspect many staff took extended holidays, most departments are
> in
> > the middle annual planning and this week WMF are gathering for their
> annual
> > all hands meetings. So lets firtst consider the fact that senior legal
> > staff have a lot on their plate.
> >
> > This problem has been discussed before and reviewed by legal as
> acceptable.
> > A subsequent review is clearly going to be a low priority task as I am
> sure
> > you can understand Pine.
> >
> > Making threats to handle ones demand and only in a manner that is
> > acceptable to you is hardly going to make staff receptive to expediting
> > your request. Lets give the good people time, afford them patience on our
> > behalf and let them do their jobs.
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 2:04 AM, Pine W  wrote:
> >
> > > FYI for those on WIkimedia-l who may be interested, conversation about
> > this
> > > matter is ongoing. I am waiting a response from WMF Legal, and there
> may
> > be
> > > others who have opened their own lines of inquiry.
> > >
> > > If I don't receive a reply from WMF Legal that I feel is satisfactory,
> or
> > > if I don't receive one at all, then I plan to set up an RfC about this
> > > matter.
> > >
> > > Pine 
> > > 
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jan 1, 2018 at 2:17 PM, Vi to  wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm scared of the solutions that will "fix" this.
> > > > I expect something as dramatically useful as the removal of "unblock
> > this
> > > > IP" button for IPs caught by autoblocks of registered users.
> > > >
> > > > Vito
> > > >
> > > > 2018-01-01 22:46 GMT+01:00 Pine W :
> > > >
> > > > > I have created https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T183876 and am
> > > pinging
> > > > > Legal to request a review of this matter.
> > > > >
> > > > > Happy new year,
> > > > >
> > > > > Pine
> > > > > ___
> > > > > Wikimedia-l 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Welcome messages at arwiki

[Vi to]

The information is so noisy (transclusions may trigger autocreation) and
irrelevant (no information about pages, just wikis) I don't see an issue
worth resolving.

Vito

2018-01-25 22:54 GMT+01:00 Pine W :

> Joe,
>
> I believe that the issue of a potential privacy violation was first raised
> on this list on December 30th, and I first emailed WMF Legal about this
> issue on January 1st. Keeping in mind that the issue involves potential
> privacy violations, I think that it's reasonable to think that this issue
> should have been reviewed within days, not weeks. I disagree with the
> statement that "A subsequent review is clearly going to be a low priority
> task as I am sure you can understand Pine." If anything, I think that the
> situation is clear to the contrary and it should have been reviewed within
> days.
>
> For me, an RfC about this matter would be for the purposes of (1)
> encouraging WMF to give more attention to this matter, (2) attempting to
> establish community consensus about whether the matters being raised here
> involve privacy violations, and (3) what should be done, if anything.
> Personally, I think that the status quo does involve privacy violations and
> that there should be changes. Whether that view is shared by others is
> something that the RfC would attempt to measure.
>
> In this circumstance I consider RfC to be similar to a ballot measure, and
> I think that it's appropriate for me to say that if I think that there are
> problems then I may use tools that are available to me to attempt to
> address them, preferably with WMF's cooperation, but without WMF"s
> cooperation if necessary and if possible.
>
> John,
>
> A previous discussion about the privacy issues occurred in
> https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T42006. I received a new email from WMF
> Legal in which they affirmed their department's 2012 view on this matter.
> The most recent email gave me the impression that they are receptive to
> discussion about whether there should be changes although there may be
> resource limitations. That sounds like a good starting place for a
> conversation, and I think that on the community's side an RfC is the best
> way to gauge the community's views. I am busy for the next few days but
> I'll try to set up an RfC on Meta during the weekend.
>
> Pine 
> 
>
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 2:29 AM, Joseph Seddon 
> wrote:
>
> > This conversation started in the middle of the Christmas break following
> > which I suspect many staff took extended holidays, most departments are
> in
> > the middle annual planning and this week WMF are gathering for their
> annual
> > all hands meetings. So lets firtst consider the fact that senior legal
> > staff have a lot on their plate.
> >
> > This problem has been discussed before and reviewed by legal as
> acceptable.
> > A subsequent review is clearly going to be a low priority task as I am
> sure
> > you can understand Pine.
> >
> > Making threats to handle ones demand and only in a manner that is
> > acceptable to you is hardly going to make staff receptive to expediting
> > your request. Lets give the good people time, afford them patience on our
> > behalf and let them do their jobs.
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 2:04 AM, Pine W  wrote:
> >
> > > FYI for those on WIkimedia-l who may be interested, conversation about
> > this
> > > matter is ongoing. I am waiting a response from WMF Legal, and there
> may
> > be
> > > others who have opened their own lines of inquiry.
> > >
> > > If I don't receive a reply from WMF Legal that I feel is satisfactory,
> or
> > > if I don't receive one at all, then I plan to set up an RfC about this
> > > matter.
> > >
> > > Pine 
> > > 
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jan 1, 2018 at 2:17 PM, Vi to  wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm scared of the solutions that will "fix" this.
> > > > I expect something as dramatically useful as the removal of "unblock
> > this
> > > > IP" button for IPs caught by autoblocks of registered users.
> > > >
> > > > Vito
> > > >
> > > > 2018-01-01 22:46 GMT+01:00 Pine W :
> > > >
> > > > > I have created https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T183876 and am
> > > pinging
> > > > > Legal to request a review of this matter.
> > > > >
> > > > > Happy new year,
> > > > >
> > > > > Pine
> > > > > ___
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ma
> > ilman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Welcome messages at arwiki

[Pine W]

Joe,

I believe that the issue of a potential privacy violation was first raised
on this list on December 30th, and I first emailed WMF Legal about this
issue on January 1st. Keeping in mind that the issue involves potential
privacy violations, I think that it's reasonable to think that this issue
should have been reviewed within days, not weeks. I disagree with the
statement that "A subsequent review is clearly going to be a low priority
task as I am sure you can understand Pine." If anything, I think that the
situation is clear to the contrary and it should have been reviewed within
days.

For me, an RfC about this matter would be for the purposes of (1)
encouraging WMF to give more attention to this matter, (2) attempting to
establish community consensus about whether the matters being raised here
involve privacy violations, and (3) what should be done, if anything.
Personally, I think that the status quo does involve privacy violations and
that there should be changes. Whether that view is shared by others is
something that the RfC would attempt to measure.

In this circumstance I consider RfC to be similar to a ballot measure, and
I think that it's appropriate for me to say that if I think that there are
problems then I may use tools that are available to me to attempt to
address them, preferably with WMF's cooperation, but without WMF"s
cooperation if necessary and if possible.

John,

A previous discussion about the privacy issues occurred in
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T42006. I received a new email from WMF
Legal in which they affirmed their department's 2012 view on this matter.
The most recent email gave me the impression that they are receptive to
discussion about whether there should be changes although there may be
resource limitations. That sounds like a good starting place for a
conversation, and I think that on the community's side an RfC is the best
way to gauge the community's views. I am busy for the next few days but
I'll try to set up an RfC on Meta during the weekend.

Pine 


On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 2:29 AM, Joseph Seddon 
wrote:

> This conversation started in the middle of the Christmas break following
> which I suspect many staff took extended holidays, most departments are in
> the middle annual planning and this week WMF are gathering for their annual
> all hands meetings. So lets firtst consider the fact that senior legal
> staff have a lot on their plate.
>
> This problem has been discussed before and reviewed by legal as acceptable.
> A subsequent review is clearly going to be a low priority task as I am sure
> you can understand Pine.
>
> Making threats to handle ones demand and only in a manner that is
> acceptable to you is hardly going to make staff receptive to expediting
> your request. Lets give the good people time, afford them patience on our
> behalf and let them do their jobs.
>
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 2:04 AM, Pine W  wrote:
>
> > FYI for those on WIkimedia-l who may be interested, conversation about
> this
> > matter is ongoing. I am waiting a response from WMF Legal, and there may
> be
> > others who have opened their own lines of inquiry.
> >
> > If I don't receive a reply from WMF Legal that I feel is satisfactory, or
> > if I don't receive one at all, then I plan to set up an RfC about this
> > matter.
> >
> > Pine 
> > 
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 1, 2018 at 2:17 PM, Vi to  wrote:
> >
> > > I'm scared of the solutions that will "fix" this.
> > > I expect something as dramatically useful as the removal of "unblock
> this
> > > IP" button for IPs caught by autoblocks of registered users.
> > >
> > > Vito
> > >
> > > 2018-01-01 22:46 GMT+01:00 Pine W :
> > >
> > > > I have created https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T183876 and am
> > pinging
> > > > Legal to request a review of this matter.
> > > >
> > > > Happy new year,
> > > >
> > > > Pine
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ma
> ilman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > 
> > > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] New Affiliations Committee appointments

[Sam Oyeyele]

Congratulations to everyone who has been appointed.

Sam.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] New Affiliations Committee appointments

[Felix Nartey]

Congratulations to all appointees!

On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 8:17 PM, Sam Oyeyele  wrote:

> Congratulations to everyone who has been appointed.
>
> Sam.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
*Felix Nartey*
*Cofounder/Director Finance & Admin*
*Open Foundation West Africa *
*+233242844987 | +447440959477*
*Skype:Flixtey*
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] New Affiliations Committee appointments

[Sam Oyeyele]

Congratulations to everyone who has been appointed.

Sam.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] New Affiliations Committee appointments

[Nurunnaby Hasive]

Congratulations to all!


Hasive

On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 8:27 PM, Katherine Maher 
wrote:

> Congratulations to Sami, Derick, and Biplab on your new appointments, Emna
> and Maor on your reappointments, and thank you Galileo for your many years
> of service!
>
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 8:18 AM, Lucas Teles  wrote:
>
> > Congratulations to the approved ones and thanks Galio for so many years
> of
> > work!
> >
> > Teles
> >
> > Em qua, 24 de jan de 2018 às 13:04, Bijay chaurasia <
> > bijaychaurasi...@gmail.com> escreveu:
> >
> > > Congratulations.
> > > Regards
> > > Bijay
> > >
> > > On 24 Jan 2018 8:59 a.m., "Rémy Gerbet" 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Congratulations to you all !!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > *Gerbet Rémy*
> > > >
> > > > *Chargé de Mission Politique Territoriale**07 84 37 91 04*
> > > > *---**-*
> > > >
> > > > *WIKIMEDIA FRANCE*Association pour le libre partage de la
> connaissance
> > > > *www.wikimedia.fr  *
> > > > *40 rue de clery, **75002 Paris*
> > > >  >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > * 
> > > > *
> > > >
> > > > 2018-01-23 17:00 GMT+01:00 Galileo Vidoni :
> > > >
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks to Kirill and to the rest of the committee for their kind
> > words.
> > > > > I'm very fond of having served AffCom and I'm always available if
> you
> > > > think
> > > > > my past experience could be useful.
> > > > >
> > > > > As to Stu's question —yes, there have been cases of outgoing
> > committee
> > > > > members not being re-appointed.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > >
> > > > > Galileo
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > El 23 ene. 2018 4:37 p. m., "Stuart Prior" <
> > > > stuart.pr...@wikimedia.org.uk>
> > > > > escribió:
> > > > >
> > > > > Congratulations to those re-selected and newly appointed, and
> > > > > commiserations to those unsuccessful.
> > > > >
> > > > > I do have one question spurred on by the consistent re-selection of
> > > > > existing members for the past two rounds which will might require a
> > > > little
> > > > > collective institutional memory to answer.
> > > > > Has anyone putting themselves forward for re-selection ever not
> been
> > > > > re-appointed by the committee?
> > > > >
> > > > > Best
> > > > >
> > > > > Stuart
> > > > > (User:Battleofalma)
> > > > >
> > > > > On 23 January 2018 at 13:52, Nabin K. Sapkota <
> > > > nboycreationne...@gmail.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Congratulations to all newly appointed and reappointed members.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > Nabin
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 23 January 2018 at 19:33, Kirill Lokshin <
> > > kirill.loks...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi everyone,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm pleased to announce that Derick Ndimnain Alangi, Biplab
> > Anand,
> > > > and
> > > > > > Sami
> > > > > > > Mlouhi have appointed to the Affiliations Committee as new
> > members.
> > > > In
> > > > > > > addition, two incumbent members -- Maor Malul and Emna Mizouni
> --
> > > > have
> > > > > > been
> > > > > > > re-appointed for an additional term.  Please join me in
> welcoming
> > > our
> > > > > new
> > > > > > > and returning members.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The committee extends its profound gratitude to Galileo Vidoni,
> > who
> > > > is
> > > > > > > stepping down after having served six years on the committee,
> and
> > > to
> > > > > > > everyone who participated in the recent selection process,
> > whether
> > > by
> > > > > > > standing as a candidate or by providing feedback on the
> > > applications.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > Kirill Lokshin
> > > > > > > Chair, Affiliations Committee
> > > > > > > ___
> > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > > > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
> > > > mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > >  > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > >  *Nabin K. Sapkota 
> > > > >  Nabin
> > > > > > K. Sapkota *
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * Nabin K. Sapkota 
> > > > > >   Nabin K. Sapkota
> > > > > >  > > > > > B0%E0%A4%AF%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%97%E0%A4%95%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%8D%E0%
> > > > > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Lower page views

[Christophe Henner]

I will only answer for our discussions during the board meeting.

This goes two fold:
* we have many teams, including in tech and product, that are understaffed.
Without pointing at one specifically, I raised that at work I have team I
can compare to the Foundation's one, on the very same topic, that is 5 FTE
larger. Even though my company isn't, yet! :), as big as the projects are.
So we have to invest to catch up on some debt we may have.
* we need to evolve. The web and the way people access information and
learn have changed in the pas few years. Plus we the way people address
knowledge in the world is very diverse. We have need to work on that. To
fit new usages and cultural differences.

On one hand consolidating on the other hand evolving.

What it actually means, I can't answer yet. There will most probably be
more on that in the annual plan. But I hope the intent is clearer.

(And for the minutes thank Chuck who did an amazing work documenting our
meeting :))

Le 25 janv. 2018 09:14, "Anders Wennersten"  a
écrit :

> Many thanks, Tillman,  for your reply and also Christophes. Your analysis
> shows there are factors effecting pageviews that needs a qualified analysis
> to get to understand the numbers .
>
> I am also happy to see that there are clever people looking into this, and
> I was also  very glad to see, in the minutes from the Board meeting in
> November (coming out yesterday), that this negative trend was up on the
> table and discussed (twice?).
>
> On the other hand I am still concerned. Could it be that our readers is
> less interested in our project and/or looking for information from other
> sites? We have been used to a steady increase of page views, and even if
> there are technical reasons (as you put forward) for very much of the
> decline, I still interpret the figures that the fact is it its_not_
> increasing as it has been doing. And this even as our project is getting
> more substantiated and better quality content, and we still see a healthy
> big increase in many ("emerging") versions.
>
> The minutes from November meeting (with its very much expended
> content-thanks for that) talks of a general guideline of increasing
> employed personnel with 10-20% for the coming three years. Is this for
> getting our platform more competitive as users look elsewhere for answers?
> But to have the ambition to match the platforms for Google and Facebook
> must be futile would it not? Or are we being naive making big investment
> for expansion when our "market share" is decreasing (if this is the case),
> and where consolidation would be more appropriate?
>
> Would a proper market survey (of how our users look for info on the  net
> and over time)  be a thing to be made before committing to an expansionist
> three years plan?
>
> Anders
>
>
> Den 2018-01-25 kl. 07:57, skrev Tilman Bayer:
>
>> Hi Anders,
>>
>> some notes about possible reasons below. As a data analyst in the
>> Foundation's Readers department, I am tracking our overall pageview
>> numbers on a monthly basis, which we report to the WMF board alongside
>> other metrics about editor activity etc. (This is also publicly
>> available at [1], where this recent pageview decline had already been
>> remarked upon earlier. What's more, you can check this regularly
>> updated chart for a visual year-over-year comparison: [2] )
>>
>> There are probably multiple causes for this year-over-year decrease
>> observable during the last few months. We know about one of them for
>> certain: The recent rollout of "page previews"[3] to all but two
>> Wikipedia versions. This is a new software feature that shows an
>> excerpt from the linked article when the reader hovers their mouse
>> over a link. It is designed to save readers the effort of clicking
>> through certain links. So a decrease in pageviews was fully expected
>> and is to some extent actually evidence for the feature's success.
>> According to our A/B tests, this decrease is around 2-4% (of desktop
>> pageviews). We are on the other hand going to measure this new,
>> alternative form of reading Wikipedia (i.e. the number of previews
>> seen) just like we measure pageviews now; there is currently a
>> technical discussion about this on the Analytics-l mailing list. But
>> for now it is not yet reflected in our public traffic reports.
>>
>> Google-referred pageviews did indeed see a year-over-year decrease of
>> some percent since November (but not before) [4], although this may
>> still not explain the entire rest of the year-over-year change in
>> overall pageviews. Regarding Google's Knowledge Panel - i.e. their
>> Wikipedia extracts that you mentioned - a research paper published
>> last year [5] has confirmed that it indeed has a negative effect on
>> our pageviews (which had long been the topic of speculation without
>> much actual evidence). However, Google already introduced this feature
>> in 2012, so it has been around over half a decade now and 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Lower page views

[Anders Wennersten]

Many thanks, Tillman,  for your reply and also Christophes. Your 
analysis shows there are factors effecting pageviews that needs a 
qualified analysis to get to understand the numbers .


I am also happy to see that there are clever people looking into this, 
and I was also  very glad to see, in the minutes from the Board meeting 
in November (coming out yesterday), that this negative trend was up on 
the table and discussed (twice?).


On the other hand I am still concerned. Could it be that our readers is 
less interested in our project and/or looking for information from other 
sites? We have been used to a steady increase of page views, and even if 
there are technical reasons (as you put forward) for very much of the 
decline, I still interpret the figures that the fact is it its_not_ 
increasing as it has been doing. And this even as our project is getting 
more substantiated and better quality content, and we still see a 
healthy big increase in many ("emerging") versions.


The minutes from November meeting (with its very much expended 
content-thanks for that) talks of a general guideline of increasing 
employed personnel with 10-20% for the coming three years. Is this for 
getting our platform more competitive as users look elsewhere for 
answers? But to have the ambition to match the platforms for Google and 
Facebook must be futile would it not? Or are we being naive making big 
investment for expansion when our "market share" is decreasing (if this 
is the case), and where consolidation would be more appropriate?


Would a proper market survey (of how our users look for info on the  net 
and over time)  be a thing to be made before committing to an 
expansionist three years plan?


Anders


Den 2018-01-25 kl. 07:57, skrev Tilman Bayer:

Hi Anders,

some notes about possible reasons below. As a data analyst in the
Foundation's Readers department, I am tracking our overall pageview
numbers on a monthly basis, which we report to the WMF board alongside
other metrics about editor activity etc. (This is also publicly
available at [1], where this recent pageview decline had already been
remarked upon earlier. What's more, you can check this regularly
updated chart for a visual year-over-year comparison: [2] )

There are probably multiple causes for this year-over-year decrease
observable during the last few months. We know about one of them for
certain: The recent rollout of "page previews"[3] to all but two
Wikipedia versions. This is a new software feature that shows an
excerpt from the linked article when the reader hovers their mouse
over a link. It is designed to save readers the effort of clicking
through certain links. So a decrease in pageviews was fully expected
and is to some extent actually evidence for the feature's success.
According to our A/B tests, this decrease is around 2-4% (of desktop
pageviews). We are on the other hand going to measure this new,
alternative form of reading Wikipedia (i.e. the number of previews
seen) just like we measure pageviews now; there is currently a
technical discussion about this on the Analytics-l mailing list. But
for now it is not yet reflected in our public traffic reports.

Google-referred pageviews did indeed see a year-over-year decrease of
some percent since November (but not before) [4], although this may
still not explain the entire rest of the year-over-year change in
overall pageviews. Regarding Google's Knowledge Panel - i.e. their
Wikipedia extracts that you mentioned - a research paper published
last year [5] has confirmed that it indeed has a negative effect on
our pageviews (which had long been the topic of speculation without
much actual evidence). However, Google already introduced this feature
in 2012, so it has been around over half a decade now and can't be
responsible per se for any recent drops. One would need to look for
more recent changes made by Google. (They actually made a tweak to the
panels for a particular topic category in early November [6], but to
me it seems rather unlikely to have had a noticeable effect on our
overall Google referrals.)

Likewise, the internet-wide multi-year trend towards mobile doesn't
really explain this recent trend in our total (desktop + mobile)
pageviews - as James already pointed out, just a year ago we were
actually seeing a year-over-year *growth* of several percent for an
extended time period.

Generally, keep in mind that while page requests by bots and spiders
are generally filtered out, the pageview numbers still encompass a
smaller amount of other automated views and artefacts, which can also
be responsible for sizable changes. In the data reported to the board
[1] I apply various corrections to filter out some more of these. But
the numbers at stats.wikimedia.org still include them. For example, if
you had looked at the same year-over-year change last summer, you
would have encountered an even bigger year-over-year pageview drop
which however is almost entirely spurious: An issue